At all.

Ppl could *elect* to either stay on their existing gov assistance or go on UBI. That is a fundamentally different scenario than being booted off assistance.

And similarly, if a sizeable number of beneficiaries opted for UBI instead bc it would be more generous, or strategically went back and forth depending on one's circumstances, yes that would save those assistance programs money... but that is not the same as them being eliminated.

I don't think this is a case of the Yang proposal criticism also applying to Romney's proposal. I think okp incorrectly applies that gutting-social-services/taking-away-benefits criticism to Yang's proposal, but it definitely applies to Romney's proposal.



>but yeah i just meant that both are providing benefits which
>on their face are good. they both are also taking away
>existing benefits as part of the plan. in both scenarios i
>have to doubt why its necessary to do so.
>